The Case for the Global Flood

[Forum Monk]

I'll grant you that you are in no way required to answer my question, but I was asking for *your* opinion which matters to me.

I don't know why my opinion about this is matters to you, except perhaps you are trolling. So let us see...

So was pre-flood mankind sort of a rough draft? Did God really require a rough draft? If he pleaded for people to choose life back then, then it must have fallen on deaf ears or he wasn't very clear in his pleas.

We are talking about drowning the entire world. Were there only SEVEN rightious people on the entire planet at the time? If so, then how can an omnipotent being allow that to happen? Free will can only account for so much. At some point the designer must be help responsible for *something*.

These questions are very important questions at a certain level, Banky, but it spins this thread into a theological and philosophical discussion which is somewhat beyond its scope and definitaly deeper than my feeble mind plunges.

I will say this. We are given some glimpses of the pre-flood world but very few and God has chosen to omit details from the text. There are mysteries; you have alluded to one - the giants resulting from the mating of "sons of god" with the "daughters of men" and there are several popular interpretations of these texts which can easily be discovered in a web search (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sons_of_God ). In my opinion, when details are missing, it is often unwise to try and fill-in the blanks.

I believe God is inerrant in His judgements for He searches our hearts and minds and knows our true intentions. And the scripture tells us nothing is hidden from Him and nothing is in darkness which shall not be brought to the light. I firmly believe that God's judgements are fair and just and no man will enter into damnation thinking God has been unfair. The scripture also tells us, that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. There are none righteous, not one, not even Noah and his family. But we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ. It was Noah's faith that was counted to him as righteousness that saved him from the judgement of the world and it is faith that will save us when Christ returns.

Looking at what happened with the few details given and then projecting our opinions on to text, it is easy for some to conclude that maybe God made a mistake in creation, why did he allow such corruption? Was he partly to blame for their sin? But this is anthropomorphising God and atrributing human frailities and errors in judgment to Him. It is a deeply theological discussion, probably deserving of its own thread.

[Gman]

Like you, I doubt that the animals are considered "moral" creatures. But they do breath air, and the scripture explicits states that he would destroy everything which had the "breath of life".

Why did you omit this scripture in your rebuttal?

Gen 6:7 So the LORD said, “I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth, both man and beast, creeping thing and birds of the air, for I am sorry that I have made them."

You need to look ahead to the next few verses to get the explanation...

"The key is in Genesis 6:12: And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (KJV)

The purpose of the flood was to wipe out this corruption. The main meaning for the Hebrew word for flesh in the Flood chapters, bâsâr, is person or man. The Hebrew dictionary doesn't even make it possible to extend this to animal flesh. God is not talking about the corruption of the animal kingdom, but about man's corruption. This is corrected in some other translations (NIV=“people”; Amplified=“humanity”). The purpose of the flood was to wipe out man, not animals. Yes, animals in the flooded locations would be killed, but they are not the target of God."

Source: http://www.answersincreation.org/broken_promise.htm

or this:
Gen 6:17 I am going to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy all life under the heavens, every creature that has the breath of life in it. Everything on earth will perish.

Again it depends on how you interpret the word "earth". "The description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

[Forum Monk]

The purpose of the flood was to wipe out this corruption. The main meaning for the Hebrew word for flesh in the Flood chapters, bâsâr, is person or man. The Hebrew dictionary doesn't even make it possible to extend this to animal flesh. God is not talking about the corruption of the animal kingdom, but about man's corruption. This is corrected in some other translations (NIV=“people”; Amplified=“humanity”). The purpose of the flood was to wipe out man,

I tend to agree with you on this one Gman. It was man who corrupted his way and the rest of creation suffered as a result. After all, sin entered the world because of man and the scripture tells us now that all of creation groans for redemption.

Again it depends on how you interpret the word "earth". "The description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area, instead of our entire planet."

As for the interpretation of erets, I believe I have shown enough evidence that a global interpretation is valid and expected in the context of a universal destruction.


FM

[Kurieuo]

Reflecting upon 2 Peter 3:5-6 which has:
"5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water, 6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water."

It seems a little strange why, if a global flood scenario and everything on Earth being destroyed was so obvious from the Jewish Scriptures, the author here says "the world at that time." If "the world" (kosmos) is in reference to the entire Earth, then is this not the same Earth we are on today? So why the need for adding "at that time"? I would have simply expected to author to have written: "through which the world was destroyed, being flooded with water," but world "at that time" instead focuses upon the people of that time. In other words, the term "world" qualified by "at that time" specifies the scope of the flood as being upon the people or nations of that time. It seems the author thought nothing about the whole world (as in "Earth") being inundated with water.

[Kurieuo]

Given this, the Christian who believes the Bible and chooses to reconcile science must conclude that people existed throughout the earth and therefore the flood could only have been global.

Science is full of a range of theories and ideas. So it seems strawmanish to limit science to one particular idea that suits your needs, namely the multi-regional hypothesis of human origins. No one person has a claim of ownership on science. For example, GodandScience.org presents a different scientific hypothesis as having arisen out of the African region (see Origin of Man slideshow). Science is thus encompassing of a local flood literal interpretation of the Biblical flood.

[Kurieuo]

I find it interesting that global flood proponents accept the translation of "erets" as "earth" (in reference to the entire planet earth) for the flood, yet when it comes to the water drying up from "the earth" the scope is then limited to a localised region. Should a person not be consistent with their translations and either accept one or the other?

So if the flood covered all the surface of planet Earth, then we should also believe the whole surface of planet Earth became completely dry (a desert) afterward for Scripture has:

Genesis 8:

v.6-7 (NASB) - "Then it came about at the end of forty days, that Noah opened the window of the ark which he had made; and he sent out a raven, and it flew here and there until the water was dried up from the earth."
v.6-7 (NIV) - "After forty days Noah opened the window he had made in the ark and sent out a raven, and it kept flying back and forth until the water had dried up from the earth."

v.13-14 (NASB) - Now it came about in the six hundred and first year, in the first month, on the first of the month, the water was dried up from the earth. Then Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and behold, the surface of the ground was dried up. In the second month, on the twenty-seventh day of the month, the earth was dry.

v.13-14 (NIV) -
By the first day of the first month of Noah's six hundred and first year, the water had dried up from the earth. Noah then removed the covering from the ark and saw that the surface of the ground was dry. By the twenty-seventh day of the second month the earth was completely dry.

Unless one is willing to accept the Earth was completely dry after the flood, one ought to be consistent with their translation of the earth being locally dry by also interpreting the flood upon the whole earth as being local. In the verses I presented above I see the dryness of the earth as obviously referring to the local land area and not the entire planet earth. So I should remain consistent and also interpret the flood upon the earth as referring to the local land area and not the entire planet.

To end, there is a good Biblical defense and argument for the local flood on this website: The Genesis Flood: Why the Bible Says It Must be Local

[Gman]

As for the interpretation of erets, I believe I have shown enough evidence that a global interpretation is valid and expected in the context of a universal destruction.

We've been through this before, erets does NOT have a literal world wide meaning...

Quote ecclesia.org: "Erets (#776 in Strong's), the Hebrew word that translated "earth" throughout the flood account and it does not require a world wide meaning. This word translated "country" (140 times) and "land" (1,476 times!) in the Bible. Many of them are often of limited land areas.

We need to keep in mind that the people living at the time of Moses had no concept of a "global" planet ... to them the "earth" would be the extent of the geographical land area known to them. To apply this literal meaning throughout the Bible causes problems. (as does other LITERAL exegesis)."

Source: http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

[Kurieuo]

Source: http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

Thanks for the link Gman. Contained some interesting points I had not considered such as the mixing of fresh and salt water, and only people who lived near Noah could have heard Noah's warning of impending judgement.

[Forum Monk]

the term "world" qualified by "at that time" specifies the scope of the flood as being upon the people or nations of that time

The distinction is given in juxtaposition of verse 7 where the present heaven and earth are compared with the one back in that time.

So it seems strawmanish to limit science to one particular idea that suits your needs, namely the multi-regional hypothesis of human origins.

Not so if scientific scholarship claims evidence that humans (HSS, HSN, HE) were in existence in practically every inhabitable region of earth since the Last Glacial Maximum and earlier.

Unless one is willing to accept the Earth was completely dry after the flood

In my opinion, this argument suggests people who believe the scripture referred to the entire earth should abandon all common sense when it mentions the water drying up. Forgive my brashness, but it seems a ridiculous argument in my opinion. If the meaning was dry as in desert dry, then it would also apply to the local flood intepretation thus the ark inhabitants would have found themselves in a desert while the unflooded part of the world would have been normal.

[Forum Monk]

We've been through this before, erets does NOT have a literal world wide meaning...

Its well understood that erets can mean earth or land (the modifier kol meaning whole or complete). It is also clear the words earth and land can easily be interchanged in practically any context without significant loss of meaning. Therefore it is imperative to interpret the word in the context intended. Yes we have been over it before.

Merely extracting a hebrew word out of the text, and citing its several meanings according to Strong's lexicon is not the proper way to interpret the scripture. Everyone of reasonable intelligence should realize this. So why when one reads the words, sometimes erets means earth and sometimes it means land (I am speaking in the many traditional translations)? Simple. The translator has done the work of intepreting the context for us and many translations are made completely independently of other, existing translations. For example, the interpretors of the New American Standard Version, did use the King James Version as a guide for determining the correct interpretation. They have independently concluded what nearly every other team of interpretators have concluded.

Very clearly, the God intends to destroy every man on earth (the face of the globe in modern parlance). Everything under heaven is to be destroyed. Just to be sure, the entire earth is under heaven. If God only destroyed part of creation He should not have said everything under heaven. And finally based on the covenant of the rainbow, God has promised never again to destroy all life with a flood. "Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.". Everyone knows there have been thousands of local floods and some have literally swept away all life in a region. The local flood argument can not stand on the interpretation of erets.

[Banky]

Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life

But he didn't destroy all life. He allowed an entire Ark of life to survive. So either he contadicted himself or his meaning is left up to a looser than literal interperetation.

[Gman]

Its well understood that erets can mean earth or land (the modifier kol meaning whole or complete). It is also clear the words earth and land can easily be interchanged in practically any context without significant loss of meaning. Therefore it is imperative to interpret the word in the context intended. Yes we have been over it before.

Merely extracting a hebrew word out of the text, and citing its several meanings according to Strong's lexicon is not the proper way to interpret the scripture. Everyone of reasonable intelligence should realize this.

Oh, so you are implying that you have reasonable intelligence then... Wow, well it is honor to be conversing with you then.. So what is the correct way to be using the Strong's lexicon?

Again this was already addressed...

"The Hebrew words which are translated as "whole earth" or "all the earth" are kol (Strong's number H3605), which means "all," and erets (Strong's number H776), which means "earth," "land," "country," or "ground."4 We don't need to look very far in Genesis (Genesis 2) before we find the Hebrew words kol erets.

* The name of the first is Pishon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Havilah, where there is gold. (Genesis 2:11)
* And the name of the second river is Gihon; it flows around the whole [kol] land [erets] of Cush. (Genesis 2:13)

Obviously, the description of kol erets is modified by the name of the land, indicating a local area from the context. In fact, the term kol erets is nearly always used in the Old Testament to describe a local area of land, instead of our entire planet."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

So why when one reads the words, sometimes erets means earth and sometimes it means land (I am speaking in the many traditional translations)? Simple. The translator has done the work of intepreting the context for us and many translations are made completely independently of other, existing translations. For example, the interpretors of the New American Standard Version, did use the King James Version as a guide for determining the correct interpretation. They have independently concluded what nearly every other team of interpretators have concluded.

The KJV was written around 1611... You mean that the interpreters back then had the complete knowledge of the topography of the entire world as we understand it today?

Very clearly, the God intends to destroy every man on earth (the face of the globe in modern parlance). Everything under heaven is to be destroyed. Just to be sure, the entire earth is under heaven. If God only destroyed part of creation He should not have said everything under heaven.

Well you are erroneously taking things out of context ... The entire earth maybe under heaven but so is the land.. Here is the verse in question (KJV).

Genesis 6:17
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth (or land), to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth (land) shall die.

And finally based on the covenant of the rainbow, God has promised never again to destroy all life with a flood. "Never again will the waters become a flood to destroy all life.". Everyone knows there have been thousands of local floods and some have literally swept away all life in a region. The local flood argument can not stand on the interpretation of erets.

We've been over this many times before.. Please read the article again...

God promised no more floods like the Genesis flood

What about the Genesis 9:11 and 9:15. If the flood was local, did God lie, since floods have destroyed local areas since the Genesis flood.

"And I establish My covenant with you; and all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood, neither shall there again be a flood to destroy the earth." (Genesis 9:11)
and I will remember My covenant, which is between Me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and never again shall the water become a flood to destroy all flesh. (Genesis 9:15)

The first part of the verse is a promise not to exercise universal judgment by means of a flood, "all flesh shall never again be cut off by the water of the flood." The flood, although local in extent, was global in judgment, since all humanity lived in the same locale. It wasn't until God confused the languages (Genesis 11) that people began to spread over the earth. So, God promised to never again execute universal judgment of humans by means of a flood. The second part, "never again will there be a flood to destroy the earth" can be explained by other verses found in the Genesis flood account.

Gen 6:11 Now the earth was corrupt in the sight of God, and the earth was filled with violence.
Gen 6:12 And God looked on the earth, and behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth.

The passage in this instance refers to the people of the earth, since planet earth itself was not corrupt. Likewise, Genesis 9:11 is referring to the people of the earth rather than the planet itself. Ultimately, even if the flood were global, it did not "destroy the earth," but just the people on the earth. As stated above, "people" is often understood from the Hebrew word erets.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... flood.html

So if you believe the flood was global, how do explain then how Noah got all the animals throughout the entire world to fit into the ark? How is Noah going to feed these animals? Do you propose he gave them salt water to drink?

[Gman]

Source: http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

Thanks for the link Gman. Contained some interesting points I had not considered such as the mixing of fresh and salt water, and only people who lived near Noah could have heard Noah's warning of impending judgement.

Thanks Kurieuo... And you brought out some very good points about Genesis 8 too. Now why didn't I think of that? This is the problem that the literalist always face with scripture. I think that many people tend to forget that the Bible is a middle eastern book. It is chuck full of figures of speech, idioms, and orientalisms that make it difficult for the western mind to grasp. It's no wonder why people turn away from these Biblical stories and call them false because it puts things out of any sound scientific reasonings.. And then we are told to "just have faith in it" because God said so... And what about those who don't believe in God in the first place?

[Canuckster1127]

Source: http://ecclesia.org/truth/flood.html

Thanks for the link Gman. Contained some interesting points I had not considered such as the mixing of fresh and salt water, and only people who lived near Noah could have heard Noah's warning of impending judgement.

Thanks Kurieuo... And you brought out some very good points about Genesis 8 too. Now why didn't I think of that? This is the problem that the literalist always face with scripture. I think that many people tend to forget that the Bible is a middle eastern book. It is chuck full of figures of speech, idioms, and orientalisms that make it difficult for the western mind to grasp. It's no wonder why people turn away from these Biblical stories and call them false because it puts things out of any sound scientific reasonings.. And then we are told to "just have faith in it" because God said so... And what about those who don't believe in God in the first place?

I'm not willing to surrender the word "literalist."

I am a literalist. I am fighting to reclaim the word from those who wield it as if you have to accept their interpretation in order to hold to the inerrency of Scripture.

It's interesting to see that the KJV is raising in the conversation as if it were the standard for translation into English.

In general, it seems to me that many who hold to YEC and Global Flood interpretations want to hold to the "literal" meaning as they read it in English and in so doing wish to avoid the hard work and thought that is necessary to establish context, cultural relevancy and applicability.

I once had a conversation on a Street Corner in Cresent City Florida with a KJV ony Baptist. We began to discuss something and I pulled out a Greek New Testement. When he asked what it was, I told him and asked his opinion. He then proceded to tell me that it was dangerous to use anything other than the KJV as God had guided its translation to make it inerrent and reliable today.

I wasn't as diplomatic then as I am now (insert caustic response here ) Suffice it to say, when we finished the conversation I was made fully aware of the dangers of education.

I'm not a fan of intellectual elitism.

I have little patience however with those (and I'm not stating there are any here on this board) who embrace and maintain ignorance as a badge of honor or preferable state over humble hard work to learn and be equipped to understand and handle the Word of God.

[Kurieuo]

the term "world" qualified by "at that time" specifies the scope of the flood as being upon the people or nations of that time

The distinction is given in juxtaposition of verse 7 where the present heaven and earth are compared with the one back in that time.

Interesting point. Yet, verse 7 is a continuation of verse 5. To quote all three verses from the KJV which attempts to provide a word-for-word translation:

• 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
  
  6Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
  
  7But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

Firstly, if you believe verse 7's "the heavens and the earth, which are now" is being contrasted against "the world that then was" (or "at that time"), then this implicates "the heavens" also (and not simply the earth) as being destroyed by water - an odd conclusion.

A better understanding of verse 7, is that it is being contrasted against verse 5's use of heavens and earth - "by the word of God, the heavens were of old, and the earth..." Thus, verse 7 is not at all being compared against verse 6's "the world that then was" like you responded, and this Scriptural argument of mine against a YEC interpretation still holds.

So it seems strawmanish to limit science to one particular idea that suits your needs, namely the multi-regional hypothesis of human origins.

Not so if scientific scholarship claims evidence that humans (HSS, HSN, HE) were in existence in practically every inhabitable region of earth since the Last Glacial Maximum and earlier.

I am surprised you are attempting to argue from Scientific scholarship on this matter, although you must disagree with the "science" that dates the Earth as being 4.5 billions years old, or a 13 billion year old universe. Scientific scholarship is not equivalent to "science," and I disagree that there is an absolute consensus amongst scientific scholarship on a multi-regional hypothesis.

Furthermore, scientific scholarship is irrelevant to what Scripture itself says. Your underlying assumption that Progressive Creationists or Day-Age proponents interpret Genesis 1 based upon current scientific understandings as to the age of the Earth is wrong.

Early Christian thinkers have reflected upon the days in Genesis 1 (such as Irenaeus and Augustine) who lived long before any modern scientific understanding of the age of the Earth and universe. In these reflections, they did not take "yom" to necessarily mean a 12 or 24-hour period of time. Furthermore, the fact we see in Scripture that God's seventh day of rest still open to be entered into (cf. Psalm 95:11; Hebrews 3-4), means the seventh yom would have at least lasted, according to young Earth creationist beliefs, 6000+ years.

Unless one is willing to accept the Earth was completely dry after the flood

In my opinion, this argument suggests people who believe the scripture referred to the entire earth should abandon all common sense when it mentions the water drying up.

Not at all, for the context provided in other places of Scripture might be different to the context being provided in the flood story. Within the whole context of the flood story, the author uses erets (earth) to mean the surrounding local land when it dried up. If the author intends erets to mean the Earth's entire surface, then he fails to qualify the change in his use of erets when describing the water which inundated the entire Earth as completely drying up. Certainly outside the flood story, erets can mean something different according to the context provided. It seems the Young-Earth Creationist is incorporating their existing beliefs into the flood story in order to interpret erets means all of Earth's surface in one case, yet a localised area in another. For there is certainly no distinction being made by the actual author of such a distinction.

Forgive my brashness, but it seems a ridiculous argument in my opinion. If the meaning was dry as in desert dry, then it would also apply to the local flood intepretation thus the ark inhabitants would have found themselves in a desert while the unflooded part of the world would have been normal.

According a local flood interpretation, if the water flooded and dried up in a localised area, then I am not sure I see how a "desert" necessarily arises. On the other hand, if the water flooded all of Earth's surface and then the water on Earth completely dried up, such is in fact indicative of all Earth becoming a desert since no water exists anywhere.

In any case, my argument is that one must remain consistent with their interpretation of erets throughout the entire flood narrative since the author makes no distinctions with his use of erets throughout.